Are Calories all equal?
Options
Replies
-
If the calorie amounts are equal, for fat loss you're fine either way.
The nutrition is not at all equal. Depending on what your overall diet looks like, one of those choices is probably better than the other. Definitely if you tend to be low on protein, tuna is better. If your overall diet is decently balanced and you're in the mood for it, the chocolate is better.
Yeah, this.happysherri wrote: »Obviously, whole foods would be a healthier choice than processed. The nutrition differs
The nutrition does differ, but because I am nitpicky and because it's actually an important point to make, whether or not something is "processed" has nothing to do with the nutrition in it. Canned tomatoes are processed, but do not lose their nutrient value, and same with canned beans and smoked salmon and skinless, boneless chicken and plain greek yogurt. (I'd consider frozen veg and dried beans processed too, but understand some might not.) Technically, cooking is a process, but if I buy a pre-cooked meal (there are many suppliers of such that make meals similar to what I'd make at home) it is not less nutritious. And a whole food may or may not be particularly nutrient dense. I love corn and think it can be good for you, but if your diet is low on protein and fat and high on carbs, is plain corn or a plain potato a better choice than some (processed) smoked salmon? Or is there something nutritionally wrong with some pasta with shrimp and lots of different kinds of vegetables, cooked in a bit of olive oil (the olive oil and pasta being processed) vs. trout with potatoes and broccoli? I'd say they are pretty similar.
Also, of course, both of OP's two options are processed. One is, on its own, more nutrient dense than the other, but on the whole it depends on his goals (to bulk) and what else he has consumed (does he need the protein?).6 -
Food has several different properties to it.
A calorie is one of those properties.
And so if you compare 900 calories of 1 food to 900 calories of an entirely different food, the calories are identical.
In your example, there are many OTHER food properties that are drastically different, but the calories are the same.
Quoted for truth, context, and general awesomeness.
A calorie is a calorie, but a food is not a food.3 -
AsrarHussain wrote: »Are calories all equal ?
I can either have 2 slices of bread with chocolate nutella spread and a bar of snickers or I can have 3 white potatoes with cheese and a can of tuna.
I don`t like eating so the bread and chocolate is more convenient but is it equal.
Shall I eat the potato with the cheese and can of Tuna?
are the calorie estimates for your two options the same? Then yes, besides them being estimates the calories are the same. That's really all you need to know for weight loss.
What you are really doing is starting a fire storm because people think a calorie is the same thing as nutritional makeup.
So maybe you should be asking if nutritionally they are the same, which they aren't. Then you are asking which one you should eat, but that depends on your specific goal, what you have already ate, and what you plan on eating the rest of the day, and if you really care more about reaching those goals than what will satisfy you more personally. So basically it is only a question you can answer with your goals.
Personally I would go for whatever I felt like at the time.
0 -
Food has several different properties to it.
A calorie is one of those properties.
And so if you compare 900 calories of 1 food to 900 calories of an entirely different food, the calories are identical.
In your example, there are many OTHER food properties that are drastically different, but the calories are the same.
Quoted for truth, context, and general awesomeness.
A calorie is a calorie, but a food is not a food.
0 -
You can't change a value of measure just to fit what you believe.I do not believe calories are all equal.
If weight loss is the goal, yes it will.If you eat 900 calories of cake and candy, it will not have the same results as eating 900 calories of protein and healthy fats.
People get fat by over consumption. And that could mean eating anything to excess.Protein calories are less fattening than calories from carbs and fat, because protein takes more energy to metabolize.
While true, it's majoring in the minors. Weight loss/gain/maintenance still comes down to CICO regardless of how it's attained.Whole foods also require more energy to digest than processed foods.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
4 -
...Whole foods also require more energy to digest than processed foods.
Not necessarily true. The TEF is highest for protein, with carbs considerably lower and fats even lower yet. So if you ate 100g of processed protein, it would take considerably more energy to digest than eating 100g of whole, pure kale, and even more still than if you were to slurp 100g of coconut oil.
It has nothing to do with whether the foods are processed or not - it has to do with the macronutrient content.
[ETA:] And I agree with ninerbuff that it's all majoring in the minors anyway.3 -
All calories are equal. They are simply a unit of measure. However, the nutrition that comes with these calories varies greatly and will affect us differently. Some will be more filling, some will leave us craving more and some will meet the bodies nutritional requirements better than others.
Technically your weight loss will be the same regardless of whether your diet consists of fresh unprocessed foods, or McDonalds, as long as your daily deficit is the same. What these food choices do to your body is another matter entirely.
My recommendations. Stick to fruit, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, beans, dairy, meat, nuts and oils etc for the majority of your food intake but allow some guilt free wiggle room for treats that you enjoy. As soon as you put desired food into the evil, you can not eat that catergory you are on a diet that is unsustainable long term and you are prone to binging when temptation gets too strong.3 -
Personally, I think we should be less concerned with the amount of calories in food and more concerned with their nutritional value. If one is solely concerned about their caloric consumption they may overlook the importance of nutrient dense foods. 200 calories is 200 calories, however, it is much more beneficial for your general wellbeing to be focusing on the nutritional content in food and not just the number of calories!4
-
katecarr1998 wrote: »Personally, I think we should be less concerned with the amount of calories in food and more concerned with their nutritional value. If one is solely concerned about their caloric consumption they may overlook the importance of nutrient dense foods. 200 calories is 200 calories, however, it is much more beneficial for your general wellbeing to be focusing on the nutritional content in food and not just the number of calories!
Not if you are trying to lose weight...3 -
katecarr1998 wrote: »Personally, I think we should be less concerned with the amount of calories in food and more concerned with their nutritional value.
I used to think that, and I ended up fat. Being fat was worse for me than being more relaxed about nutrition would have been, probably. Luckily, however, you don't have to choose. You can eat a nutrient dense diet WHILE ALSO focusing on calories.If one is solely concerned about their caloric consumption they may overlook the importance of nutrient dense foods.
No one is going to ignore nutrition because they are concerned about calories. Some people don't care about nutrition and will choose to lose weight (which is a positive change!) without also deciding to care about nutrition all of a sudden. My suspicion is that people counting calories will gravitate toward more filling foods and that often means more nutrient dense foods. Also, just as I tend to eat better when I'm focusing on working out (since it turns my mind more toward the positives of being healthy), many who focus on losing weight will, as they start feeling better and improving their health, get excited about making even more positive changes, like focusing on nutrition.
However, there is absolutely nothing about focusing on calories that makes you less likely to focus on nutrition, so your first sentence seems to me a false dichotomy.200 calories is 200 calories, however, it is much more beneficial for your general wellbeing to be focusing on the nutritional content in food and not just the number of calories!
Let's say you are obese and can choose between losing weight by eating an appropriate number of calories without changing how much you focus on nutrition beyond what happens naturally OR changing your diet to be the same number of total calories as you are currently eating but foods you perceive as healthy (because let's be honest, a lot of people who have not been eating healthful diets think of it as avoiding "bad" foods and adding "good" foods instead of actually learning about how nutrition works). I think the more positive change for health, by far, will be losing the weight.
Food choice MAY affect how easy it is to lose and sustain weight loss, but that will be a personal thing, and will require you figuring out a diet that makes you happy, something that may take a while if you weren't interested in a nutritious diet at all before starting to lose. (I know it was fortunate for me that I already enjoyed eating a healthful diet, even if I needed to eat less for it to be truly healthful.)3 -
A calorie is a unit of measurement, like amperes or grams. Nothing more, nothing less. You wouldn't say, "well, that's a good inch and that's a bad inch". In terms of weightless a calorie is a calorie is a calorie. Now, in terms of overall health, nutrition is a different story. If you needed to eat 1500 calories a day to have enough of a deficit to lose a pound a week you would lose weight regardless of whether or not you consumed 1500 calories worth of whole foods or 1500 calories worth of gummy bears. The issue is how would you feel? The trick is balance. There isn't anything inherently wrong with eating a calorie dense meal or treat, so long as you are eating at a deficit.9
-
A calorie is a unit of measurement, like amperes or grams. Nothing more, nothing less. You wouldn't say, "well, that's a good inch and that's a bad inch". In terms of weightless a calorie is a calorie is a calorie. Now, in terms of overall health, nutrition is a different story. If you needed to eat 1500 calories a day to have enough of a deficit to lose a pound a week you would lose weight regardless of whether or not you consumed 1500 calories worth of whole foods or 1500 calories worth of gummy bears. The issue is how would you feel? The trick is balance. There isn't anything inherently wrong with eating a calorie dense meal or treat, so long as you are eating at a deficit.
I've heard of an angry inch.2 -
A calorie is a unit of measurement, like amperes or grams. Nothing more, nothing less. You wouldn't say, "well, that's a good inch and that's a bad inch". In terms of weightless a calorie is a calorie is a calorie. Now, in terms of overall health, nutrition is a different story. If you needed to eat 1500 calories a day to have enough of a deficit to lose a pound a week you would lose weight regardless of whether or not you consumed 1500 calories worth of whole foods or 1500 calories worth of gummy bears. The issue is how would you feel? The trick is balance. There isn't anything inherently wrong with eating a calorie dense meal or treat, so long as you are eating at a deficit.
I've heard of an angry inch.
I had a friend they called "the angry inch." Never did find out why. :shrugs:6 -
katecarr1998 wrote: »Personally, I think we should be less concerned with the amount of calories in food and more concerned with their nutritional value. If one is solely concerned about their caloric consumption they may overlook the importance of nutrient dense foods. 200 calories is 200 calories, however, it is much more beneficial for your general wellbeing to be focusing on the nutritional content in food and not just the number of calories!
I see this sentiment posted frequently here. It's a fair point. But in my experience, nutrition took care of itself. And I bet I'm not the only one.
When I figured out that it was really all about calories for weight loss, that it was really as simple as an energy balance, I was free! I could eat whatever I wanted as long as I kept in an energy deficit.
But as I put this into practice, I figured out PDQ that eating a variety of nutritious food was a heck of a lot more likely to make me successful than just eating ice cream and candy all day. As I packed my lunches, I realized that fruits and vegetables were great ways to get plenty of food without too much of a dent in my budget. As I lost weight and got in better shape, I took more of an interest in my health. I also realized that I could have some portions of less nutritious treats as well, which relieved a huge burden in my (failed) prior weight loss attempts.
Why is there this assumption that people will automatically eat nothing but soda and cake if they understand that conservation of energy is the fundamental underlying principle? Aren't we adults? Aren't we supposed to know to eat nutritious food?13 -
katecarr1998 wrote: »Personally, I think we should be less concerned with the amount of calories in food and more concerned with their nutritional value. If one is solely concerned about their caloric consumption they may overlook the importance of nutrient dense foods. 200 calories is 200 calories, however, it is much more beneficial for your general wellbeing to be focusing on the nutritional content in food and not just the number of calories!
The simple answer to the simple questions is that a calorie is a calorie, and this is where people get confused and everyone gets blamed for saying people can eat whatever they want.
3 -
katecarr1998 wrote: »Personally, I think we should be less concerned with the amount of calories in food and more concerned with their nutritional value. If one is solely concerned about their caloric consumption they may overlook the importance of nutrient dense foods. 200 calories is 200 calories, however, it is much more beneficial for your general wellbeing to be focusing on the nutritional content in food and not just the number of calories!
I see this sentiment posted frequently here. It's a fair point. But in my experience, nutrition took care of itself. And I bet I'm not the only one.
When I figured out that it was really all about calories for weight loss, that it was really as simple as an energy balance, I was free! I could eat whatever I wanted as long as I kept in an energy deficit.
But as I put this into practice, I figured out PDQ that eating a variety of nutritious food was a heck of a lot more likely to make me successful than just eating ice cream and candy all day. As I packed my lunches, I realized that fruits and vegetables were great ways to get plenty of food without too much of a dent in my budget. As I lost wright and got in better shape, I took more of an interest in my health. I also realized that I could have some portions of less nutritious treats as well, which relieved a huge burden in my (failed) prior weight loss attempts.
Why is there this assumption that people will automatically eat nothing but soda and cake if they understand that conservation of energy is the fundamental underlying principle? Aren't we adults? Aren't we supposed to know to eat nutritious food?
So glad to hear that you are happy now and eating healthier! That's awesome!
My mom was diagnosed with breast cancer 3 times and recently passed away from stage 4 lung cancer! After she passed, I completely changed my eating habits. I only eat anti inflammatory foods and stay away from processed foods and processed sugars. After doing a lot of research on the links between cancer and food, I was shocked at what I found! According to some studies, up to 30% of cancers can be prevented just by eating a healthy diet and exercising regularly. Other studies show an even higher correlation at 70%.
I definitely agree that there is a misconception between calorie restriction and eating healthy. I think that most people are well aware that if they want to lose weight then they should eat fewer calories while eating nutritious foods! I apologize for coming across as being ignorant in that aspect! However, I do still believe that a lot of people are unaware of what is in the food we eat! I certainly was oblivious before doing a lot of research!
A lot of foods that are presumed to be healthy, due to fewer calorie content, just aren't that good for you. What I was trying to say was pay close attention to what's in food.
I definitely didn't get my point across in my previous post. I should have clearly stated why it was important to look at the nutritional value in foods. If you are trying to lose weight, then yes, you would definitely need to focus on eating fewer calories. I'm extremely passionate about nutrition now so I apologize if I came across as being ignorant in the aspects of eating fewer calories to lose weight.
My intentions were never to aggravate anyone, simply just to bring attention to the importance of a nutritious diet. I now realize I should've added a lot more information and background as to why it's important.
Hope everyone has an awesome day
4 -
katecarr1998 wrote: »katecarr1998 wrote: »Personally, I think we should be less concerned with the amount of calories in food and more concerned with their nutritional value. If one is solely concerned about their caloric consumption they may overlook the importance of nutrient dense foods. 200 calories is 200 calories, however, it is much more beneficial for your general wellbeing to be focusing on the nutritional content in food and not just the number of calories!
I see this sentiment posted frequently here. It's a fair point. But in my experience, nutrition took care of itself. And I bet I'm not the only one.
When I figured out that it was really all about calories for weight loss, that it was really as simple as an energy balance, I was free! I could eat whatever I wanted as long as I kept in an energy deficit.
But as I put this into practice, I figured out PDQ that eating a variety of nutritious food was a heck of a lot more likely to make me successful than just eating ice cream and candy all day. As I packed my lunches, I realized that fruits and vegetables were great ways to get plenty of food without too much of a dent in my budget. As I lost wright and got in better shape, I took more of an interest in my health. I also realized that I could have some portions of less nutritious treats as well, which relieved a huge burden in my (failed) prior weight loss attempts.
Why is there this assumption that people will automatically eat nothing but soda and cake if they understand that conservation of energy is the fundamental underlying principle? Aren't we adults? Aren't we supposed to know to eat nutritious food?
So glad to hear that you are happy now and eating healthier! That's awesome!
My mom was diagnosed with breast cancer 3 times and recently passed away from stage 4 lung cancer! After she passed, I completely changed my eating habits. I only eat anti inflammatory foods and stay away from processed foods and processed sugars. After doing a lot of research on the links between cancer and food, I was shocked at what I found! According to some studies, up to 30% of cancers can be prevented just by eating a healthy diet and exercising regularly. Other studies show an even higher correlation at 70%.
I definitely agree that there is a misconception between calorie restriction and eating healthy. I think that most people are well aware that if they want to lose weight then they should eat fewer calories while eating nutritious foods! I apologize for coming across as being ignorant in that aspect! However, I do still believe that a lot of people are unaware of what is in the food we eat! I certainly was oblivious before doing a lot of research!
A lot of foods that are presumed to be healthy, due to fewer calorie content, just aren't that good for you. What I was trying to say was pay close attention to what's in food.
I definitely didn't get my point across in my previous post. I should have clearly stated why it was important to look at the nutritional value in foods. If you are trying to lose weight, then yes, you would definitely need to focus on eating fewer calories. I'm extremely passionate about nutrition now so I apologize if I came across as being ignorant in the aspects of eating fewer calories to lose weight.
My intentions were never to aggravate anyone, simply just to bring attention to the importance of a nutritious diet. I now realize I should've added a lot more information and background as to why it's important.
Hope everyone has an awesome day
Mazel tov.
1 -
katecarr1998 wrote: »katecarr1998 wrote: »Personally, I think we should be less concerned with the amount of calories in food and more concerned with their nutritional value. If one is solely concerned about their caloric consumption they may overlook the importance of nutrient dense foods. 200 calories is 200 calories, however, it is much more beneficial for your general wellbeing to be focusing on the nutritional content in food and not just the number of calories!
I see this sentiment posted frequently here. It's a fair point. But in my experience, nutrition took care of itself. And I bet I'm not the only one.
When I figured out that it was really all about calories for weight loss, that it was really as simple as an energy balance, I was free! I could eat whatever I wanted as long as I kept in an energy deficit.
But as I put this into practice, I figured out PDQ that eating a variety of nutritious food was a heck of a lot more likely to make me successful than just eating ice cream and candy all day. As I packed my lunches, I realized that fruits and vegetables were great ways to get plenty of food without too much of a dent in my budget. As I lost wright and got in better shape, I took more of an interest in my health. I also realized that I could have some portions of less nutritious treats as well, which relieved a huge burden in my (failed) prior weight loss attempts.
Why is there this assumption that people will automatically eat nothing but soda and cake if they understand that conservation of energy is the fundamental underlying principle? Aren't we adults? Aren't we supposed to know to eat nutritious food?
So glad to hear that you are happy now and eating healthier! That's awesome!
My mom was diagnosed with breast cancer 3 times and recently passed away from stage 4 lung cancer! After she passed, I completely changed my eating habits. I only eat anti inflammatory foods and stay away from processed foods and processed sugars. After doing a lot of research on the links between cancer and food, I was shocked at what I found! According to some studies, up to 30% of cancers can be prevented just by eating a healthy diet and exercising regularly. Other studies show an even higher correlation at 70%.
I definitely agree that there is a misconception between calorie restriction and eating healthy. I think that most people are well aware that if they want to lose weight then they should eat fewer calories while eating nutritious foods! I apologize for coming across as being ignorant in that aspect! However, I do still believe that a lot of people are unaware of what is in the food we eat! I certainly was oblivious before doing a lot of research!
A lot of foods that are presumed to be healthy, due to fewer calorie content, just aren't that good for you. What I was trying to say was pay close attention to what's in food.
I definitely didn't get my point across in my previous post. I should have clearly stated why it was important to look at the nutritional value in foods. If you are trying to lose weight, then yes, you would definitely need to focus on eating fewer calories. I'm extremely passionate about nutrition now so I apologize if I came across as being ignorant in the aspects of eating fewer calories to lose weight.
My intentions were never to aggravate anyone, simply just to bring attention to the importance of a nutritious diet. I now realize I should've added a lot more information and background as to why it's important.
Hope everyone has an awesome day
@katecarr1998 Very good post. I hope you decide to stick around the forums
4 -
From a weight loss point or calories are equal doesn't matter where they come from you can lose weight eating snicker bars and drinking vodka. Now speaking from a nutritional point of view not the best diet program to follow.
From a nutritional point of view calories are different as far as how they affect your body. You need carbs for energy, fats for different reasons and proteins for muscle building. To put things in perspective a lot of people say to eliminate fats from your diet if you do a Google search on something called rabbit starvation it's an interesting process on what happens when your body doesn't get the fat that it needs. I know that by adding fats to my diet I actually didn't have the hunger pangs I used to have.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 939 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions